Aspen® CTO

The Aspen® CTO combines highly effective motion restriction of the cervical and upper thoracic spine with a level of comfort that makes it well tolerated by patients. Research has shown substantially progressive motion restriction in going from a stand-alone cervical collar, to a two-post device, and then on to a four-post orthosis. For these reasons, the Aspen® CTO system offers the greatest versatility available when dealing with cervical-thoracic problems in today’s cost conscious healthcare environment.

Features

Effective Motion Restriction The Aspen® Cervicothoracic Bracing System™ provides a fully integrated approach for quantifiable motion restriction of cervical spine patients. Physicians are now able to prescribe patient therapies based upon the needs defined at specific vertebral levels to ensure the best possible outcomes.

Multiple Options By incorporating design elements that allow the Aspen System to be “stepped down” from a 4 post CTO, to a 2 post model and then to a stand alone collar, it is now possible to tailor the degree of motion restriction to the specific needs of the patient. And, because no ferrous metal is used, the brace is MRI compatible.

Proven Performance Utilizing videofluoroscopic technology, university researchers and practicing clinicians have quantified cervical motion restriction at each vertebral segment. Data were compiled for each of the three different orthotic configurations. Numerical results are shown in the table to the right. These findings are graphically shown as insets on the photographs to the left. The gold wedges show motion allowed in flexion and extension when moving from the 4 post CTO, to a 2 post CTO, and finally an Aspen® Collar.

The anterior and posterior red lines represent unbraced range of motion as measured by videofluroscopy.

Pediatric Sizes Available

Frequently Asked Questions

FOR THE PATIENT

How often do Aspen® CTO Collar pads need to be changed?

Pads should be changed or cleaned daily.

How do I clean the pads?

Use a mild soap and water to clean the pads by hand. Pat them dry with a towel and lay out to air dry. Do not use heat to dry the pads.

Where can replacement pads be purchased?

Replacement may be available from the facility you received the collar from, or you may order more through Aspen Customer Service. Call 800-295-2776.

FOR THE PROVIDER

How do I select the correct size?

See the sizing guide for instructions. To ensure a good fit, the chin piece should be flush with the chin. Flex tabs can be cut away to obtain a more customized fit.

Downloads

To download the following PDFs, right-click (option-click on Mac) and select “Save Link As…”

READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE. Proper training in the use of this device should take place before it is applied. These directions are guidelines only and are not offered as medical recommendations.

THIS PRODUCT IS INTENDED FOR APPLICATION BY LICENSED HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS AS DIRECTED BY A PHYSICIAN OR OTHER QUALIFIED MEDICAL AUTHORITY. PERMANENT INJURY MAY RESULT FROM USE OTHER THAN AS DIRECTED BY A PHYSICIAN OR OTHER MEDICAL AUTHORITY. ASPEN MEDICAL PRODUCTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY FOR INJURY OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF ANY APPLICATION OF THIS PRODUCT. PLEASE SEE THE ACCOMPANYING LIMITED WARRANTY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD.

Research

Biomechanical Analysis of Cervical Orthoses in Flexion and Extension: A Comparison of Cervical Collars and Cervical Thoracic Orthoses

Abstract

The analysis of current cervical collars (Aspen and Miami J collars) and cervical thoracic orthoses (Aspen 2-post and Aspen 4-post) in reducing cervical intervertebral and gross range of motion in flexion and extension was performed using 20 normal volunteer subjects.

Selected Quotations

“It is important that the prescribing physician recognizes the differences between the function of cervical orthoses, so they may make informed decisions as to which orthosis is most appropriate for a specific condition.”

(Pg. 527)

Gross Head Motion Restriction “Flexion motion allowed in the Miami J collar was significantly greater than that allowed in the Aspen collar. No significant difference was found between the two collars in extension.”

(Pg. 531)

Neck (CO to C7) Motion Restriction “When measuring angular motion of CO relative to C7 using VF images, we found no statistically significant differences in angular motion allowed between the Miami J and Aspen collars in either flexion or extension.”

(Pg. 531)

Intervertebral Angular Motion Restriction “No significant differences in flexion were allowed at any intervertebral segment between the Aspen or Miami J collars except at C5-6, where the Miami J allowed more motion.”

(Pg. 532)

“In restricting angular motion in flexion, the CTO’s were significantly better than the collars at C3-4, C5-6 and C6-7 segments.”

(Pg. 532)

Discussion “The capability of the 4-post CTO to effectively restrict extension motion seems to contradict the current thinking that the halo may be the only effective orthosis for reducing motion in extension.”

(Pg. 536)

Conclusion “Our findings suggest that either of the two collars could be used to treat similar cervical pathologies or injuries except those involving the C5-6 segment, where the Aspen collar may provide better motion restriction.”

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Since Hangman’s fracture was initially noted in 1965 by Schneider et al, anatomy and the proposed mechanism of this injury have been well documented; however, controversy regarding the optimal treatment of it has continued to linger.

PURPOSE: To discuss the selection of therapy for Hangman’s fracture and determine the treatment efficacy.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective design.

PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 29 patients from 2002-2008, male 20 cases, femal 9 cases, with a mean age of 39 years (16-57 years).

OUTCOME MEASURES: Levine-Edwards system was used to classify the fractures, and radiographs were used to determine motion, angulation and fracture union.

METHODS: Type I, Type II and part of Type IIA Hangman’s fractures were treated with early collar or halo-vest immmobilization after traction reduction, buy Type IIA with an angulation of greater than or equal to 12º between C2 and C3 and Type III fractures were treated with surgical procedure (posterior occipital fusion or C1-3 fusion).

RESULTS: There were a total of 8 Type 1, 14 Type II, 5 Type IIA and 2 Type III Hangman’s fractures. Three patients presented with neurologic deficits caused by spinal cord injury, nine patients were found to have associated spinal fractures. The mean follow-up was 18 months (4-37 months). All fractures progressed to union. There was no implant failure (loosening, bending, or breakage of screws).

CONCLUSIONS: Early collar or halo-vest immobilization after traction reduction of Type I, Type II and part of Type IIA Hangman’s fractures is an effective method of management. Type IIA with an angulation of greater than or equal to 12º between C2 and C3 and Type III fracture may require posterior occipital fusion or C1- 3 fusion.